DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments as filed 08/29/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 13 have been amended.
Claims 8, 10-11, and 17-18 have been canceled.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, and 19 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended in part to recite the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
248
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Respectfully, it is not clear what the calculation is intended to encompass. For example, it is clear that the processors are recited as “calculat[ing] power or energy drawn from a power grid by the device… based on one or more measurements of power delivered to the device…”; herein, the Examiner notes nothing more is needed to calculate power drawn from a power grid by the device as recited. A model is not needed to calculate this power because the calculation is stated as being based on “a measurement of power delivered to the device”. Power delivered to the device is the definition of “power… drawn from a power grid by the device”. It is not at all clear what this generically described model is now intended to impart to the “calculation” as said calculation is fully satisfied when a measurement is taken. Furthermore, the output of said model is not further relied upon in any of the claims. It appears, this attachment to the claims is purely non-functional to whatever applicant believes his invention is supposed to encompass. As it is not clear what the scope of the claimed calculation is intended to encompass, which is distinct from the result of whatever this calculation encompasses, the claims are held to be indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, exemplified in the following limitations of claim 1:
calculate power or energy drawn from a power grid by the device over a time period based on one or more measurements of power delivered to the device;
derive an efficiency of an adaptor powering the device [using… a machine learning model that takes as an input the power delivered to the device]
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations).
That is, the calculate step, as drafted, is a basic mathematical concept. The use of a machine learning model to derive an efficiency is a wish for such derivation when recited at this high-level of generalization. At this level of generality, there is no technical problem being solved and no technical solution recited, to solve a technical. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic devices (e.g. a “device” and “circuitry”, and “processor”), etc… does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, the recitation of generic reference to use of “machine learning” is abstract at this level of generality. See In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612-613 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Using a generic telephone for its intended purpose was a well-established "basic concept" sufficient to fall under Alice step 1.) Also, using “machine learning” for its intended purpose is sufficient to fall under Alice step 1 when recited at this high-level of generality.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this mathematical calculation of power consumption) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “An electronic device comprising: circuitry that measures power delivered to the device; and one or more processors that… a model of one or more power adapters that characterizes load versus efficiency for the adapters…. electronically communicate the calculated power or energy to at least one of a user or owner of the electronic device, a manufacturer of the electronic device or a regulatory entity…,”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “measuring power delivered” when recited at this high-level of generality nor is the applicant’s invention a technique of “electronically communicating” information. At this level of generality, the communication is insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, a description that the processor includes a model is not significantly more than the abstract idea – note the recited model is not further illuminated except abstractly as noted supra (i.e. as a generic “machine learning model”). Therefore, the description that a generic model exists is not something which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or link them to a field of use or are insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. power and/or energy consumption calculation), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “wherein the circuitry that measures power delivered to the device measures power delivered to the device via a wired interface.” However, “wireless” interfaces are not applicant’s invention and the mere description of how data is collected via some generic interface not invented by the applicant is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the Non-Patent Literature publication of Loic Lannelongue et al. (Green Algorithms: Quantifying footprint of computation; Advanced Science, vol. 8, no. 12, p. 2100707, July 2021; hereinafter Lannelongue) in view of DeHaven (US 2013/0285460 A1; hereinafter, “DeHaven”) in view of Au et al. (US 2022/0121891 A1; hereinafter, “Au”).
Claim 1: (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claim 1, Lannelongue as shown teaches the following:
An electronic device comprising:
circuitry that measures power delivered to the device (Lannelongue, see at least [pg. 3]: “…Power (in Watt, W) measures the instantaneous draw of [power delivered to] a component.”; see also Lannelongue’s citations to references 17 and 18 on [pg. 16]); and one or more processors that:
calculate power or energy drawn from a power grid by the device over a time period based on one or more measurements of power delivered to the device (Lannelongue, see at least [pg. 3]: “…Energy (in kilowatt-hours, kWh) measures the power draw over time [power or energy drawn from a power grid by the device over a time period] and is obtained by multiplying the power draw by the running time.”),
[…]
Electronically communicate the calculated power or energy to at least one of a user or owner of the electronic device, a manufacturer of the electronic device, or a regulatory entity (Lannelongue, see at least [Pg. 7] and associated graphics electronically communicated to a user regarding calculated power and energy usage.).
Although Lannelongue teaches the aforementioned limitations, including power calculation as well as the necessity of knowing the power or energy efficiency of a system, e.g. as noted at least per [pg. 13], teaching: “…Carbon footprint is directly proportional to data centre [system] efficiency and the carbon intensity of the location…”, he may not explicitly teach the below nuance regarding calculating power based on a model of one or more power adapters. However, regarding this nuance Lannelongueu in view of DeHaven teaches the following:
a model of one or more power adapters that characterizes load versus efficiency for the adapters; […] that takes as an input the power delivered to the device and derives therefrom an efficiency of an adapter powering the device (DeHaven, see at least [0002], teaching: “…A typical power adapter provides power to the electronic load device to which it is connected at a nominal regulated voltage… As a result, a variety of different power adapter models[types] with different maximum current ratings matched to different electronic products are often utilized…”; where per at least [0016]: “…The output voltage droop may be expressed, for a particular adapter, as a graph [a model] of regulated voltage vs. current demanded (also referred to as a "voltage/current curve") that describes [characterizes] the decrease in output voltage [the relative efficiency] that occurs for an increase in current drawn [i.e. load].”; as it is within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art that power = voltage * current, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognized that via rearrangement and substitution of variables, DeHaven’s model provides the output, given the input, as claimed and therefore obvious to try such rearrangement because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649. and/or because per MPEP 2143(I) (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of DeHaven (which notes that a power adapter graph [model] may characterize load versus efficiency for the adapter and is useful in calculating power usage of devices) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lannelongue (already directed towards calculating power usage of devices) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of DeHaven to the device/method of Lannelongue to calculate Lonnelongue’s power using the graph [model] of DeHaven’s power adapaters and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Although Lannelongue/DeHaven teach the aforementioned features, and as shown DeHaven teaches graphs [models] of adapters which characterizes load versus efficiency for the adapters as claimed, he may not explicitly teach his graph [model] is a “machine learning model”. However, regarding this generic nuance, the Examiner finds that the teachings of Lannelongue/DeHaven in view of AU teach this generic feature, as follows:
wherein the model is a machine learning model (Au at [0048] teaches: “…the labeled graphs may be used to train a machine learning model to analyze and label new graph data…”)
In view of these teachings, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Au which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lannelongue/DeHaven to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of AU to the graph data of Lannelongue/DeHaven, e.g. the graph data model of DeHaven’s power adapter, to create a machine learning model for such power adapters because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 2 (Original)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Kizilyalli teaches the following: The electronic device of claim 1 wherein the circuitry that measures power delivered to the device measures power delivered to the device via a wired interface (Kizilyalli, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0116], e.g.: “…In addition to communication between the mobile device 810 and the power adapter 850 through a wired connection as illustrated in FIG. 9 (e.g., a USB connection), wireless connections can be established to complement or supplement a wired connection…”).
Claim 4 (Original)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Lannelongue teaches the following: The electronic device of claim 1 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to estimate a carbon footprint of the device from the calculated power or energy drawn from the power grid by the device over the time period and data retrieved from an external source characterizing carbon intensity of the power grid for the time period (Lannelongue, see citations notes supra, including also at least [pg. 3-5], e.g.: “… Carbon intensity of energy production For a given country and energy mix, the carbon footprint in C02e represents the amount of CO2 with the same global warming impact as the GHGs emitted, which simplifies the comparison between different electricity production methods. The carbon footprint of producing 1 kWh of energy is called Carbon Intensity (Cl) and varies significantly between locations due to the broad range of production methods (Supplementary Figure 2),…”).
Claim 5 (Currently amended)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Lannelongue teaches the following: The electronic device of claim 4 wherein the one or more processors electronically communicate the estimated carbon footprint to an external device (Lannelongue, see citations notes supra, including Fig. 1, i.e. a screen display as in Fig. 1 is displayed on an external device to the processor and therefore whether explicitly stated, it nonetheless would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the processor which calculates Lannelongue’s estimated carbon footprint to also communicate such estimated carbon footprint to a display device external to the processor to enable the display as noted per Fig. 1 and/or merely so that the calculator may be used in a graphical manner by individuals and entities for which the calculator is taught as being intended and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
PNG
media_image2.png
748
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Claim 6 (Original)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Lannelongue teaches the following: The electronic device of claim 4 wherein the time period comprises a plurality of first time intervals, and the data retrieved from the external source characterizing carbon intensity of the power grid for the time period includes data characterizing a plurality of second time intervals, each second time interval including multiple first time interval (Lannelongue, see citations notes supra, including Fig. 1, e.g. “minutes” [first time intervals] and “hours” [second time interval including multiple first time intervals]).
Claim 7 (Original)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Lannelongue teaches the following: The electronic device of claim 6 wherein the first time intervals are on the order of seconds, and the second time intervals are on the order of minutes or hours (Lannelongue, see citations notes supra, including Fig. 1, e.g. “minutes” [first time intervals] and “hours” [second time interval including multiple first time intervals]).
Claim 9 (Original)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown DeHaven teaches the following: The electronic device of claim 1 wherein the model comprises a plurality of models corresponding to different adapter types (DeHaven, see at least [0002]: “…variety of different power adapter models [types] with different maximum current ratings matched to different electronic products are often utilized…”)
Claim 12 (Currently amended)
Lannelongue teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Lannelongue teaches the following:
A method of estimating a carbon footprint of an electronic device, the method comprising: using one or more sensors of the electronic device to periodically determine power delivered to the device over a plurality of first time periods (Lannelongue, see at least [pg. 3]: “…Power (in Watt, W) measures the instantaneous draw of a component. Energy (in kilowatt-hours, kWh) measures the power draw [power delivered to the device] over time and is obtained by multiplying the power draw by the running time [over a plurality of first time periods].”; see also Lannelongue’s citations to references 17 and 18 on [pg. 16]);;
[…]
aggregate power delivered to the device and losses over the plurality of first time periods into a plurality of second time periods, each of the plurality of second time periods encompassing multiple first time periods; retrieve carbon intensity data associated with a power grid supplying the power delivered to the device over the plurality of second time periods; and calculate the carbon footprint of the electronic device from the aggregated power delivered to the device and losses and the retrieved carbon intensity data (Lannelongue, see again Fig. 1, and [pgs. 3-5]. E.g. per Fig. 1, an aggregate of power delivered to the device running the algorithm, accounting for losses to peripherals, over a period of specified time periods of hours [second time periods] encompassing time periods of minutes [first time periods] is displayed. Carbon Intensity data for the location where the device is using power is retrieved per the location received by the online calculator. The carbon footprint of the device is calculated from the aggregate power draw of the device over the time period of interest, accounting for the losses – i.e. energy required to run other equipment of the data centre such as cooling for the computers needed to run the algorithm. Note the graph of carbon intensity per location.)
[…]
Electronically communicate the calculated carbon footprint to at least one of a user or owner of the electronic device, a manufacturer of the electronic device, or a regulatory entity (Lannelongue, see at least [Pg. 7] and associated graphics electronically communicated to a user regarding calculated power and energy usage.).
Although Lannelongue teaches the aforementioned limitations, including power calculation as well as the necessity of knowing the power or energy efficiency of a system, e.g. as noted at least per [pg. 13], teaching: “…Carbon footprint is directly proportional to data centre [system] efficiency and the carbon intensity of the location…”, he may not explicitly teach the below nuance regarding calculating power based on a model of one or more power adapters. However, regarding this nuance Lannelongueu in view of DeHaven teaches the following:
using one or more processors of the electronic device to: estimate losses associated with the power delivered to the device over the plurality of first time periods, using a model of one or more power adapters that characterizes load versus efficiency for the adapters, […], that takes as an input the power delivered to the device and derives therefrom an efficiency of an adapter powering the device (DeHaven, see at least [0002], in view of [0016] and [0027] regarding power loss, e.g.: DeHaven, per at least [0002], teaching: “…A typical power adapter provides power to the electronic load device to which it is connected at a nominal regulated voltage… As a result, a variety of different power adapter models[types] with different maximum current ratings matched to different electronic products are often utilized…”; where per at least [0016]: “…The output voltage droop may be expressed, for a particular adapter, as a graph [a model of a power adapter] of regulated voltage vs. current demanded (also referred to as a "voltage/current curve") that describes [characterizes] the decrease in output voltage [the relative efficiency] that occurs for an increase in current drawn [i.e. load].”; as it is within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art that power = voltage * current, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognized that via rearrangement and substitution of variables, DeHaven’s model provides the output, given the input, as claimed and therefore obvious to try such rearrangement because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649. and/or because per MPEP 2143(I) (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of DeHaven (which notes that a power adapter graph [model] may characterize load versus efficiency for the adapter and is useful in calculating power usage of devices) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lannelongue (already directed towards calculating power usage of devices) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of DeHaven to the device/method of Lannelongue to calculate Lonnelongue’s power using the graph [model] of DeHaven’s power adapaters and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Although Lannelongue/DeHaven teach the aforementioned features, and as shown DeHaven teaches graphs [models] of adapters which characterizes load versus efficiency for the adapters as claimed, he may not explicitly teach his graph [model] is a “machine learning model”. However, regarding this generic nuance, the Examiner finds that the teachings of Lannelongue/DeHaven in view of AU teach this generic feature, as follows:
wherein the model is a machine learning model (Au at [0048] teaches: “…the labeled graphs may be used to train a machine learning model to analyze and label new graph data…”)
In view of these teachings, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Au which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lannelongue/DeHaven to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of AU to the graph data of Lannelongue/DeHaven, e.g. the graph data model of DeHaven’s power adapter, to create a machine learning model for such power adapters because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 13 (Currently amended)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Lannelongue teaches the following: The method of claim 12 …further comprises communicating the estimated carbon footprint to an external device (Lannelongue, see citations notes supra, including Fig. 1, i.e. a screen display as in Fig. 1 is displayed on an external device to the processor and therefore whether explicitly stated, it nonetheless would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the processor which calculates Lannelongue’s estimated carbon footprint to also communicate such estimated carbon footprint to a display device external to the processor to enable the display as noted per Fig. 1 and/or merely so that the calculator may be used in a graphical manner by individuals and entities for which the calculator is taught as being intended and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claim 14 (Original)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Lannelongue teaches the following: The method of claim 12 wherein the first time period is on the order of seconds (Lannelongue, see citations notes supra, including Fig. 1, e.g. “minutes” [first time intervals] and “hours” [second time interval including multiple first time intervals]).
Claim 15 (Original)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Lannelongue teaches the following: The method of claim 14 wherein the second time period is on the order of minutes or hours (Lannelongue, see citations notes supra, including Fig. 1, e.g. “minutes” [first time intervals] and “hours” [second time interval including multiple first time intervals]).
Claim 16 (Original)
Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown DeHaven teaches the following: The method of claim 12 wherein the model programmed to characterize load versus efficiency for a power source encompasses a plurality of efficiency versus power curves for power adapters that supply power to the device (DeHaven, see at least [0016]: “…The output voltage droop may be expressed, for a particular adapter, as a graph [a model] of regulated voltage vs. current demanded (also referred to as a "voltage/current curve") that describes [characterizes] the decrease in output voltage [the relative efficiency] that occurs for an increase in current drawn [i.e. load].”)).
Claim 19:
Lannelongue/DeHaven/Au teaches the aforementioned limitations. Furthermore, DeHaven teaches the following:
The method of claim 12 wherein the model programmed to characterize load versus efficiency for a power source comprises a plurality of models each corresponding to different power sources (DeHaven, see at least Figs. 7-10 a power source is comprised of multiple power adapters and may be modeled as shown per Figs. 8 and 9, see also at least [0018], teaching: “…As defined herein and in the appended claims, a "power supply" shall be broadly understood to mean a power source constructed from one or more power adapters that have the same nominal DC output voltage.”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lannelongue in view of DeHaven, Au and further in view of Kizilyalli et al. (US 2016/0241148 A1; hereinafter, “Kizilyalli”),
Claim 3 (Original)
Although Lannelongue /DeHaven/Au teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends, they may not explicitly teach the below nuance. However, regarding this feature, Lannelongue/DeHaven/Au in view of Kizilyalli teaches the following: The electronic device of claim 1 wherein the circuitry that measures power delivered to the device measures power delivered to the device via a wireless interface (Kizilyalli, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0116], e.g.: “…In addition to communication between the mobile device 810 and the power adapter 850 through a wired connection as illustrated in FIG. 9 (e.g., a USB connection), wireless connections can be established to complement or supplement a wired connection…”). Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Kizilyalli which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lannelongue/DeHaven/AU to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Kizilyalli to the device/method of Lannelongue /DeHaven/AU in order to perform the limitation in question because Lannelongue /DeHaven/AU and Kizilyalli are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 12, 13 have been amended and Claims 8, 10-11, and 17-18 have been canceled on 08/29/2025. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 08/29/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 101, 112, and 103 rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621